post removed?

Post Reply New Topic

I was just wondering if the post about Amanda Baggs was removed. It didn't really seem to be going anywhere, I'm just curious if it qualified as offensive enough to be censored or if somethings else is up.

I dunno.. could it have maybe been moved to one of the other forums?

Well I am quite glad to see that thread vanish.

It started with a post by a new person (first post) which included a link to an article which contained material which might be a libel. I think that article in question was a personal attack.

I have no idea which of the mods made it vanish, I am not a mod but I would suggest that no further discussion of the thread in question should occur in public. My understanding of the rules is that public discussion of banned topics is itself banned. Below is part of the rules here, I have highlighted some parts of it.

Conduct
-----------
The following activities are unacceptable on WrongPlanet:

1. Posting offensive language, comments, video, or images.
Unacceptable content includes swearing; racist, sexist, homophobic language; behavior intended to provoke or belittle other members; violent or sexually demeaning content; sexual fetish; and discussion of excretory function. Posting graphic images or videos of people or animals being harmed is prohibited.

2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.

3. Other inappropriate content and behavior prohibited on Wrong Planet:
This includes copyrighted material, serial codes, and posts made to promote a website, group or product, particularly if made repeatedly and without other participation in the WP community (spamming). This also includes discussion of locked topics, discussion of banned members and why they were banned and anything else that purposely causes conflict with other members.

Ohh.. I didn't know what it was about..

I didn't know you couldn't talk about WHY something has been banned

It was removed because Amanda is a member here and posting things here about her questioning rather she is genuine or not is considered an attack on another member.

Post hole topic

I could never figure out this Amanda Baggs.

Anbuend = Amanda Baggs?

It's only locked topics that cannot be discussed further. Topics that disappear may have simply been moved to a different forum. Otherwise how are we (the users) supposed to know that the topic is "banned"?

It would be odd that it was pulled completely; people claim others don't have AS, etc all the time here. From what I've read, there is even a thread opining that the website developer, Alex, doesn't have AS (I make no such accusation here, but am simply referencing). Perhaps there was more to it than that (if it wasn't just moved, that is).

If someone is really curious, they could PM a moderator for an answer. That's likely the best way. Talking about WHY something is locked or banned is something of a slippery slope in that it can easily segue into a discussion of the locked/banned material itself.

Yes, why are you shocked?

applied rhetorical redundancy rules.................

the acronymous sound this thread will make.

or

Application of Predestined Destination,

The synonymous title at stake.

Anonymous Ache

I do not know what the mods rules are, but I think that while locking a thread means they want all discussion on a topic to halt when they make a thread vanish it a more serious matter. My understanding is that the "vanish into thin air" is reserved for super offensive things and such threads should not be restarted.

If you want to know if a thread which I have posted to has moved, my normal way of refinding it is to search for all the posts which I have made and look for it there. I have posted a few times to threads which have later disappeared without trace, and they have also disappeared from the list of "my posts".

Yeah, that was my first thought too. But then I figured, "How can we figure out if a thread vanished due to mod intervention or something simple like the original poster withdrawing it? Or it being moved? Or a system glitch?" I certainly don't know how to find a moved, re-named thread; your method sounds good, but I'm not going to go searching through my last 300+ posts searching for something that may or may not be under a completely different title! I hope I'm not sounding offensive there, woodpecker, I've got nothing but respect for you.

Plus the fact that locked threads are explicitly mentioned in the rules, but missing threads are not. Add to that the fact that we're being allowed to talk about this (which is implicit approval).

Ultimately, it would be foolish to just yank the thread rather than leave it as an example to others who may want to post the same thing. If my thread was yanked, I'd be re-creating it assuming it was a glitch. If it was locked, I would know the score. Besides, it's not too tough to put "This is an attack on a member and will not be allowed" and delete all links and then it would sit there serving as an example to others as it died a slow death.

My money is on the scenario where this new, first post user wrote something out of jealousy and someone sent a PM and said, "Hey, that's not cool here" and they pulled it.

So after continued thought, it seemed to me that there are just too many ways a thread can disappear than to just assume that it means mods are super-ticked off. The main thrust of the rules is that we do not post things that are harmful or hurtful to other members. If we all keep that in mind, none of this locking or pulling (if that is what happened in this case) will matter.

Heck somebody PM a mod and find out. It's 103 today in Portland and I'm feeling lazy like a sun-baked gecko (no offense to any sun-baked geckos out there)

There is quite a bit of information that can be found with a google search about the controversy surrounding the person the missing post was about. It seems that either several people have a vendetta to damage this person's reputation, or they are truly concerned about a misrepresentation of Autism by this person to a very large audience. By large, I mean several television specials and being quoted by persons speaking to lawmakers about Autism related matters.

I tried to choose my words carefully. I like it here and don't want to get a mod boot in my behind. All I'm saying is that there is allot of information out there. If any person that made themselves a public figure became one of the 28 thousand members, would that mean we couldn't say their name or discuss information about them?

That's a good point I hadn't even considered. Public figures are something of a seperate realm. I couldn't imagine being unable to criticize Dan Akroyd, for example, just because he is a self-admitted Aspie. Not that I want to criticize Dan Akroyd, but still...

As far as the mods here go, though, they don't seem too heavy-handed. Some here get away with quite a lot (again, not pointing any fingers).

I would assume yes.

So if John Best or Jenny McCarthy joined, people could be punished for discussing them or their credibility?